Quote:
Originally Posted by testallthings
So, in your opinion, are denominations the spiritual norm, and if so should they be encouraged and spread even more?
|
I think that the problem is that people are too hung up on separating spiritual from secular. And too hung up on deciding whether their version is spiritual and then presuming that others must not be.
Your suggestion that a particular way is the norm and should be encouraged to spread is to ignore that every church written to in the epistles was in a different state of affairs in many ways. There is no indication of any but one of the churches having an ongoing display of "speaking in tongues." If we are to presume that everything was simply understood and followed in the exact same manner, then the epistles are the evidence against that presumption. And nothing in the epistles simply corrected everything to a central, only-one-way-to-do-it format.
Paul established many of the churches he wrote to. Yet they were not simply the same.
Our problem all these centuries later is that despite our disdain for the way the RCC goes about it, having some with significant training in both pure theology and in the history of our theology keeps a regular link back to the thinking that went before. (Yes, despite our desire for new and fresh, it is the tried-and-true that is the most certain. A sort of "that which I received I delivered unto you.") And since every assembly cannot necessarily have what it believes to be sufficient resources to support that link on their own, they band together.
And despite everyone's desire for all to think precisely the same thing on all issues, they do not, so there is a tendency for us to join in what has recently been called a homophily — a sort of birds of a feather grouping. We naturally group. And despite our propensity to gasp at the admission that we group separately from others, we tend to find ourselves unable to return to that from whence we came (the RCC), so it is difficult to argue that there is no basis for the groupings.
Yet despite these groupings, most do not consider that the others are not Christians and not church. (Yes, there are exclusivist groups besides the LRC. And there are a lot of people that think that the RCC is simply heathen while somehow managing to teach enough correctly to have a lot of Christians within it — I disagree with that position.)
It is the overstated rhetoric of those who would have everyone join their group or be reprobate that keeps us focused on the things that separate us rather than what unites us. Yes, when we focus on our disagreements, it seems like a problem.
But if you move to a somewhat rural place and as is commonly found, you have the option of a Methodist and a Baptist church, how do you chose? Do you go to the Methodists to be one with those who believe that salvation is at least somewhat tenuous and can be lost? Or do you join the Baptists who hold to a mostly Calvinist way of thinking? But having done that, do you think the others are not Christian? That they are not a church? That they are reprobate and leading people to perdition?
Do you think that instead starting a new group that claims to not have such separation (like no identifiable name), yet still holds to its version of which doctrines are right and which are wrong solves anything? More like it has just increased the separation.
Of course, there are many churches that do at least sort of do it on their own. But even most of those follow-on behind some source, often of significance, but without joining the group. And since they are not somewhat bound by the group, they will be a little free to wander. So now there is a variation on that source group.
But all of this focuses on how we understand scripture. And when I read scripture, I find a lot that I could understand in several different ways that are not relevant to whether I believe in Christ and follow the best that I can see to. I sat last Sunday biting my tongue as there was some discussion or predestination. It went beyond just whether or not God predestines some to salvation and some to perdition (I am still not sure how complete that is intended to be but I acknowledge that the creator has the right to do things however he sees fit.) But it was wandering into the realm of stating that everything that happens is "ordained" specifically. That the electrical storm that knocked the power out in parts of the area was preordained to affect all of the residents of the area in the manner that they were affected (Woke up late, had battery backup and no effect, etc.) I am fully aware that God could actually do all of that. But I question whether it would be something that he would actually do.
And when it says "God works all things together for good . . ." is it intending to mean that God causes all of the things that happens so he can work them out for good (it doesn't actually say that), or is it that he takes what comes, whether as a result of nature, others, etc., as well as things he actually directs, and causes the end result to be good (for those in Christ Jesus)?
Do you know the answer? If you think you do, are you sure? Is it because you read certain words in a certain way even though they could be read differently?
If I tend to think in a particular way (that is not simply contrary to the gospel of Christ) should I join with a group that will be constantly grinding at me because we disagree on so many things? When every sermon is so focused on the backsliders, or on the fact that everything is so preordained that I am wondering why it matters what I do because it is going to go exactly as planned? I would rather at least set most of the differences aside by not having them confront me every time we get together. I am not saying that I have a problem with them as Christians. Or understand that they may be more right than I am. I am open to consideration. (And if you have followed any of my Calvinism v Arminianism discussions, you will find that I am not sure that either is simply right or simply wrong.) And I still accept them as Christian brothers and sisters. That includes the UMC church just a few blocks down from the place I meet that has openly accepted gays. Do I think there are problems with that? You bet. But I also think that there are problems with the idea that we should be so closed to them that they will not even come among us if they are open to seek the truth about Christ and let him begin to work on the rest.
- - - -
So, do you understand my "opinion"? I think that the focus on denominations is to intend to separate from those that do not simply think like me while a focus on Christ is to intend to be one with all Christians even if we do not agree on everything.
There is no thought that more denominations is good. But enough assemblies to attract as many as will come (or as are ordained to come — whichever way you want to look at it) is a good thing. If we are all focused on what is the First Thing, then the fact of denominations will be irrelevant to the moving forward of the Church.